What is the impact of active management on biodiversity in boreal and temperate forests set aside for conservation or restoration? A systematic map

Environmental Evidence

Volumn 4, Issue 1, 2015, Pages

  Bernes, Claes ^a   Jonsson, Bengt Unnar ^b   Junninen, Kaisa ^c   Lõhmus, Asko ^d   Macdonald, Ellen ^e   Müller, Jörg ^f   Sandström, Jennie ^b  

^a ROYAL SWEDISH ACADEMY OF SCIENCES   (Sweden)

^b MID SWEDEN UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

^c UNIVERSITY OF EASTERN FINLAND   (Finland)

^d UNIVERSITY OF TARTU   (Estonia)

^e UNIVERSITY OF ALBERTA   (Canada)

^f BAVARIAN FOREST NATIONAL PARK   (Germany)

Author keywords

Biodiversity; Boreal forest; Browsing; Dead wood; Disturbance legacy; Forest conservation; Forest reserve; Forest restoration; Forest set aside; Grazing; Habitat management; Partial harvesting; Prescribed burning; Temperate forest; Thinning

Indexed keywords

EID: 84952330057     PISSN: None     EISSN: 20472382     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/s13750-015-0050-7     Document Type: Article

References (82)

1. FAO. Global forest resources assessment 2010: Main report. FAO Forestry Paper, vol 163. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations; 2010.
2. Schelhaas MJ, Nabuurs GJ, Schuck A. Natural disturbances in the European forests in the 19th and 20th centuries. Glob Change Biol. 2003;9:1620-33.
3. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity. Global Biodiversity Outlook 3. Montréal: UNEP/Earthprint; 2010.
4. Convention on Biological Diversity. Strategic plan for biodiversity 2011-2020. COP Decision X/2. Aichi: 2010.
5. Eide W. Arter och naturtyper i habitatdirektivet - bevarandestatus i Sverige 2013. Uppsala: ArtDatabanken, SLU; 2014.
6. Hanski I. Extinction debt and species credit in boreal forests: Modelling the consequences of different approaches to biodiversity conservation. Ann Zool Fenn. 2000;37:271-80.
7. Zehetmair T, Müller J, Runkel V, Stahlschmidt P, Winter S, Zharov A, et al. Poor effectiveness of Natura 2000 beech forests in protecting forest-dwelling bats. J Nat Conserv. 2015;23:53-60.
8. Lõhmus A, Kohv K, Palo A, Viilma K. Loss of old-growth, and the minimum need for strictly protected forests in Estonia. Ecol Bull. 2004;51:401-11.
9. Meyer P, Schmidt M, Spellmann H, Bedarff U, Bauhus J, Reif A, et al. Aufbau eines Systems nutzungsfreier Wälder in Deutschland. Natur und Landschaft. 2011;86:243-9.
10. Linder P. Structural changes in two virgin boreal forest stands in central Sweden over 72 years. Scand J For Res. 1998;13:451-61.
11. Hedwall P-O, Mikusiński G. Structural changes in protected forests in Sweden: implications for conservation functionality. Can J For Res. 2015;45:1-10.
12. Bradshaw RHW, Jones CS, Edwards SJ, Hannon GE. Forest continuity and conservation value in Western Europe. Holocene. 2015;25:194-202.
13. Sammul M, Kattai K, Lanno K, Meltsov V, Otsus M, Nõuakas L, et al. Wooded meadows of Estonia: conservation efforts for a traditional habitat. Agric Food Sci. 2008;17:413-29.
14. Nascimbene J, Dainese M, Sitzia T. Contrasting responses of epiphytic and dead wood-dwelling lichen diversity to forest management abandonment in silver fir mature woodlands. For Ecol Manage. 2013;289:325-32.
15. SER. The SER International Primer on Ecological Restoration. Tucson: Society for Ecological Restoration International; 2004.
16. Bernes C. Biodiversity in Sweden. Monitor 22. Stockholm: Swedish Environmental Protection Agency; 2011.
17. Halme P, Allen KA, Auniņš A, Bradshaw RHW, Brumelis G, Čada V, et al. Challenges of ecological restoration: Lessons from forests in northern Europe. Biol Conserv. 2013;167:248-56.
18. Humphrey JW. Benefits to biodiversity from developing old-growth conditions in British upland spruce plantations: a review and recommendations. Forestry. 2005;78:33-53.
19. Clear JL, Molinari C, Bradshaw RHW. Holocene fire in Fennoscandia and Denmark. Int J Wildland Fire. 2014;23:781-9.
20. Götmark F. Habitat management alternatives for conservation forests in the temperate zone: review, synthesis, and implications. For Ecol Manage. 2013;306:292-307.
21. Davies ZG, Tyler C, Stewart GB, Pullin AS. Are current management recommendations for saproxylic invertebrates effective? A systematic review. Biodivers Conserv. 2008;17:209-34.
22. Stanturf JA, Palik BJ, Dumroese RK. Contemporary forest restoration: a review emphasizing function. For Ecol Manage. 2014;331:292-323.
23. Stephens SL, McIver JD, Boerner REJ, Fettig CJ, Fontaine JB, Hartsough BR, et al. The effects of forest fuel-reduction treatments in the United States. Bioscience. 2012;62:549-60.
24. Abella SR, Springer JD. Effects of tree cutting and fire on understory vegetation in mixed conifer forests. For Ecol Manage. 2015;335:281-99.
25. Elliott KJ, Harper CA, Collins B. Herbaceous response to type and severity of disturbance. In: Greenberg CH, Collins BS, Thompson FR, editors. Sustaining young forest communities: ecology and management of early successional habitats in the central hardwood region, USA., Managing Forest Ecosystems, New York: Springer; 2011. p. 97-119.
26. Kennedy PL, Fontaine JB. Synthesis of knowledge on the effects of fire and fire surrogates on wildlife in U.S. dry forests. Special report 1096. Corvallis, Or.: Oregon State University Agricultural Experiment Station; 2009.
27. Meggs JM. Wildlife responses to stand-level structural retention practices in the boreal forest. Technical Bulletin 964. Research Triangle Park: NCASI; 2009.
28. Nascimbene J, Thor G, Nimis PL. Effects of forest management on epiphytic lichens in temperate deciduous forests of Europe - a review. For Ecol Manage. 2013;298:27-38.
29. Alba C, Skalova H, McGregor KF, D'Antonio C, Pysek P. Native and exotic plant species respond differently to wildfire and prescribed fire as revealed by meta-analysis. J Veg Sci. 2015;26:102-13.
30. Duguid MC, Ashton MS. A meta-analysis of the effect of forest management for timber on understory plant species diversity in temperate forests. For Ecol Manage. 2013;303:81-90.
31. Fedrowitz K, Koricheva J, Baker SC, Lindenmayer DB, Palik B, Rosenvald R, et al. Can retention forestry help conserve biodiversity? A meta-analysis. J Appl Ecol. 2014;51:1669-79.
32. Fontaine JB, Kennedy PL. Meta-analysis of avian and small-mammal response to fire severity and fire surrogate treatments in U.S. fire-prone forests. Ecol Appl. 2012;22:1547-61.
33. Foster CN, Barton PS, Lindenmayer DB. Effects of large native herbivores on other animals. J Appl Ecol. 2014;51:929-38.
34. Fulé PZ, Crouse JE, Roccaforte JP, Kalies EL. Do thinning and or burning treatments in western USA ponderosa or Jeffrey pine-dominated forests help restore natural fire behavior? For Ecol Manage. 2012;269:68-81.
35. Kalies E, Covington W, Chambers C, Rosenstock S. How do thinning and burning treatments in southwestern conifer forests in the United States affect wildlife density and population performance? CEE review 09-005 (SR66). Bangor: Collaboration for Environmental Evidence; 2010.
36. Kalies EL, Chambers CL, Covington WW. Wildlife responses to thinning and burning treatments in southwestern conifer forests: a meta-analysis. For Ecol Manage. 2010;259:333-42.
37. Paillet Y, Bergès L, Hjältén J, Ódor P, Avon C, Bernhardt-Römermann M, et al. Biodiversity differences between managed and unmanaged forests: meta-analysis of species richness in Europe. Conserv Biol. 2010;24:101-12.
38. Pastro LA, Dickman CR, Letnic M. Fire type and hemisphere determine the effects of fire on the alpha and beta diversity of vertebrates: a global meta-analysis. Glob Ecol Biogeogr. 2014;23:1146-56.
39. Seibold S, Bässler C, Brandl R, Gossner MM, Thorn S, Ulyshen MD, et al. Experimental studies of dead-wood biodiversity - a review identifying global gaps in knowledge. Biol Conserv. 2015;191:139-49.
40. Vanderwel MC, Maicolm JR, Mills SC. A meta-analysis of bird responses to uniform partial harvesting across North America. Conserv Biol. 2007;21:1230-40.
41. Verschuyl J, Riffell S, Miller D, Wigley TB. Biodiversity response to intensive biomass production from forest thinning in North American forests - a meta-analysis. For Ecol Manage. 2011;261:221-32.
42. Collaboration for Environmental Evidence. Guidelines for systematic review and evidence synthesis in environmental management. Version 4.2. Bangor: Environmental Evidence; 2013.
43. Bernes C, Jonsson BG, Junninen K, Lõhmus A, Macdonald E, Müller J et al. What is the impact of active management on biodiversity in forests set aside for conservation or restoration? A systematic review protocol. Environ Evid. 2014;3(22):1-9.
44. Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 1977;33:159-74.
45. Peel MC, Finlayson BL, McMahon TA. Updated world map of the Köppen-Geiger climate classification. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci. 2007;11:1633-44.
46. Rosenvald R, Lõhmus A. For what, when, and where is green-tree retention better than clear-cutting? A review of the biodiversity aspects. For Ecol Manage. 2008;255:1-15.
47. Aubry K, Halpern C. CE P. Variable-retention harvests in the Pacific Northwest: a review of short-term findings from the DEMO study. For Ecol Manage. 2009;258:398-408.
48. FAO. FRA 2000 on definitions of forest and forest change. Appendix 1: Definitions as in FRA Working Paper 1 and comments. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations; 1998.
49. Kuuluvainen T, Aakala T. Natural forest dynamics in boreal Fennoscandia: a review and classification. Silva Fennica. 2011;45:823-41.
50. Gromtsev A. Natural disturbance dynamics in the boreal forests of European Russia: a review. Silva Fennica. 2002;36:41-55.
51. Franklin JF. Toward a new forestry. Am For. 1989;95(11/12):37-44.
52. Lindenmayer DB, Franklin JF, Lõhmus A, Baker SC, Bauhus J, Beese W, et al. A major shift to the retention approach for forestry can help resolve some global forest sustainability issues. Conserv Lett. 2012;5:421-31.
53. Hansson L. Ecological principles of nature conservation: applications in temperate and boreal environments. London: Elsevier; 1992.
54. Peterken GF. Natural woodland: ecology and conservation in northern temperate regions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1996.
55. Samuelsson J, Gustafsson L, Ingelög T. Dying and dead trees. A review of their importance for biodiversity. Report 4306. Stockholm: Swedish Environmental Protection Agency; 1994.
56. Jonsson B, Kruys N, Ranius T. Lessons from species ecology for dead wood management at a landscape scale. Silva Fennica. 2005;38:289-309.
57. Bauhus J, Puettmann K, Messier C. Silviculture for old-growth attributes. For Ecol Manage. 2009;258:525-37.
58. Kuuluvainen T, Aapala K, Ahlroth P, Kuusinen M, Lindholm T, Sallantaus T, et al. Principles of ecological restoration of boreal forested ecosystems: Finland as an example. Silva Fennica. 2002;36:409-22.
59. Côté SD, Rooney TP, Tremblay JP, Dussault C, Waller DM. Ecological impacts of deer overabundance. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst. 2004;35:113-47.
60. Lõhmus A, Remm L, Rannap R. Just a ditch in forest? Reconsidering draining in the context of sustainable forest management. Bioscience. 2015. doi: 10.1093/biosci/biv136.
61. Similä M, Aapala K, Penttinen J. Ecological restoration in drained peatlands - best practices from Finland. Vantaa: Metsähall Nat Serv; 2014.
62. Sebek P, Altman J, Platek M, Cizek L. Is active management the key to the conservation of saproxylic biodiversity? Pollarding promotes the formation of tree hollows. PLoS One. 2013;8(3):e60456.
63. Angelstam P, Axelsson R, Elbakidze M, Laestadius L, Lazdinis M, Nordberg M, et al. Knowledge production and learning for sustainable forest management on the ground: Pan-European landscapes as a time machine. Forestry. 2011;84:581-96.
64. Ulybina O. Model forests in the Russian federation: Local perspectives, challenges and outcomes. Environ Policy Gov. 2015. doi: 10.1002/eet.1679.
65. Lindenmayer DB, Margules CR, Botkin DB. Indicators of biodiversity for ecologically sustainable forest management. Conserv Biol. 2000;14:941-50.
66. Nilsson SG, Hedin J, Niklasson M. Biodiversity and its assessment in boreal and nemoral forests. Scand J For Res Suppl. 2001;3:10-26.
67. Caro T. Conservation by proxy: indicator, umbrella, keystone, flagship, and other surrogate species. Washington, DC: Island Press; 2010.
68. Osler GHR, Korycinska A, Cole L. Differences in litter mass change mite assemblage structure on a deciduous forest floor. Ecography. 2006;29:811-8.
69. Müller J, Opgenoorth L. On the gap between science and conservation implementation - a national park perspective. Basic Appl Ecol. 2014;15:373-8.
70. Arlettaz R, Schaub M, Fournier J, Reichlin TS, Sierro A, Watson JEM, et al. From publications to public actions: When conservation biologists bridge the gap between research and implementation. Bioscience. 2010;60:835-42.
71. Habel JC, Gossner MM, Meyer ST, Eggermont H, Lens L, Dengler J, et al. Mind the gaps when using science to address conservation concerns. Biodivers Conserv. 2013;22:2413-27.
72. Gerhardt P, Arnold JM, Hackländer K, Hochbichler E. Determinants of deer impact in European forests - a systematic literature analysis. For Ecol Manage. 2013;310:173-86.
73. Gill RMA, Beardall V. The impact of deer on woodlands: the effects of browsing and seed dispersal on vegetation structure and composition. Forestry. 2001;74:209-18.
74. Gordon IJ, Hester AJ, Festa-Bianchet M. The management of wild large herbivores to meet economic, conservation and environmental objectives. J Appl Ecol. 2004;41:1021-31.
75. Rooney TP, Waller DM. Direct and indirect effects of white-tailed deer in forest ecosystems. For Ecol Manage. 2003;181:165-76.
76. Suominen O, Danell K. Effects of large herbivores on other fauna. In: Danell K, Bergström R, Duncan P, Pastor J, editors. Large herbivore ecology, ecosystem dynamics and conservation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2006. p. 383-412.
77. Mitchell FJG, Kirby KJ. The impact of large herbivores on the conservation of semi-natural woods in the British uplands. Forestry. 1990;63:333-53.
78. Putman RJ. Grazing in temperate ecosystems, large herbivores and the ecology of the New Forest. London: Croom Helm; 1986.
79. Russell FL, Zippin DB, Fowler NL. Effects of white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) on plants, plant populations and communities: A review. The American Midland Naturalist. 2001;146:1-26.
80. Bilotta GS, Milner AM, Boyd I. On the use of systematic reviews to inform environmental policies. Environ Sci Policy. 2014;42:67-77.
81. Mascia MB, Pallier S, Thieme ML, Rowe A, Bottrill MC, Danielsen F, et al. Commonalities and complementarities among approaches to conservation monitoring and evaluation. Biol Conserv. 2014;169:258-67.
82. Sutherland WJ, Peel MJS. Benchmarking as a means to improve conservation practice. Oryx. 2011;45:56-9.